But advocates on either side of this debate (or others) often times are sufficiently aware of that struggle with complexity as to exploit it in argumentation. So what you point out is absolutely fair... as is the observation of the original poster.
In this subject or any other where speakers are likely to be strongly emotionally or philosophically bound to their position, you must first consider the speaker/writer/etc. and then use that to gauge any particular argument they might make. ...and this is complex, too... you can be right and still engage in undue overstatement or trivialization to make your point.
tl;dr: Don't take anything at face value. Facts can be painted in many different colors. Don't merely accept, be judgmental.